alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-80539, 333-1854, 333-68323 and 333-102028 on Form S-8, and Nos. 333-67557,
333-45324 and 333-75386 on Form S-3 of META Group, Inc. of our report dated
February 14, 2003 (March 12, 2003 as to Note 10) (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the
Company's adoption of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101, "Revenue Recognition
in Financial Statements" effective January 1, 2000 and the adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets" effective January 1, 2002) appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of META Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
March 25, 2003
# C_2022311EN.01000801.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — Corneli v ECB

(Case T-501/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Decision of the BCE to place Banca Carige under temporary administration - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the confidentiality of information that is protected as such under EU law - General presumption of confidentiality - Concept of confidential information - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 311/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Francesca Corneli (Velletri, Italy) (represented by: F. Ferraro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner, A. Riso and M. Van Hoecke, acting as Agents, and by D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyer)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of European Central Bank (ECB) Decision LS/LDG/19/182 of 29 May 2019 refusing to grant access to its decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 29 May 2019 refusing to grant access to its decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 29 May 2019 refusing to grant access to its decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration;

| 2. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---
# C_2019383EN.01004201.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/42

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 9 August 2019 — Gmina Wrocław v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

(Case C-604/19)

(2019/C 383/50)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gmina Wrocław

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into immovable property ownership rights by operation of law, such as in the circumstances of the present case, constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) thereof, which is subject to value added tax (‘VAT’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into immovable property ownership rights by operation of law, such as in the circumstances of the present case, constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) thereof, which is subject to value added tax (‘VAT’)?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into immovable property ownership rights by operation of law constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) thereof, which is subject to VAT? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into immovable property ownership rights by operation of law constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) thereof, which is subject to VAT?

| 3. | Does a municipality that charges fees for the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into immovable property ownership rights by operation of law, such as in the circumstances of the present case, act as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) thereof, or as a public authority within the meaning of Article 13 of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does a municipality that charges fees for the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into immovable property ownership rights by operation of law, such as in the circumstances of the present case, act as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) thereof, or as a public authority within the meaning of Article 13 of that directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 10.16**
Director Fee Arrangements
     Fees for the non-employee directors of ITLA Capital Corporation (the “Company”) for 2005 havebeen set by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors at $1,000 per Board orboard committee meeting attended, plus a monthly retainer of $2,250. In addition, Preston Martin,the Chairman of the Audit Committee, will receive an annual retainer of $15,000 for his service inthat capacity. In the discretion of the Compensation Committee, individual directors may alsoreceive honorariums for additional work performed on behalf of the Company. The honorariums paidto directors for 2004 were as follows: (i) an honorarium of $5,000 to Director Robert Reed for histime and assistance with legislative matters; (ii) an honorarium of $5,000 to Director JeffreyLipscomb for his time and assistance with compensation matters; (iii) an honorarium of $15,000Director Hirotaka Oribe for his time and assistance with Japanese business matters and hisextensive work with the Executive Committee on lending matters; and (iv) an honorarium of $10,000to Director Martin for his time and assistance with matters concerning the Company’s recentlyexecuted agreement with Fannie Mae.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 554 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 554

To prohibit the use of Department of Justice funds for the prosecution 
 in Article III courts of the United States of individuals involved in 
               the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2011

  Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. 
Grassley, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Burr, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Johanns, 
 Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Brown of Ohio) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of Department of Justice funds for the prosecution 
 in Article III courts of the United States of individuals involved in 
               the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FUNDS FOR 
              PROSECUTION IN ARTICLE III COURTS OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED 
              IN THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, TERRORIST ATTACKS.

    (a) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Prosecution of 9/11 Terrorists 
in Article III Courts.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
made available for the Department of Justice may be obligated or 
expended to commence or continue the prosecution in an Article III 
court of the United States of an individual described in subsection (b) 
for any offense that may be prosecuted by military commission under 
chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military 
Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
    (b) Covered Individuals.--An individual described in this 
subsection is an individual suspected of planning, authorizing, 
organizing, committing, or aiding the attacks on the United States and 
its citizens that occurred on September 11, 2001, who--
            (1) is not a citizen of the United States; and
            (2) is subject to jurisdiction under chapter 47A of title 
        10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions 
        Act of 2009).
    (c) Article III Court of the United States Defined.--In this 
section, the term ``Article III court of the United States'' means a 
court of the United States established under Article III of the 
Constitution of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

This certification is not tobe deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report of UTStarcom, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”).

 

In connection with theReport, we, Hong Liang Lu and Michael J. Sophie, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: | May 10, 2005                                                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                 |
| By:    | /s/ Hong Liang Lu                                                    |   |
|   | Name: Hong Liang Lu                                                  |
|   | Title: President and Chief  Executive Officer                        |
|   |                                                                 |
| By:    | /s/ Michael J. Sophie                                                |   |
|   | Name: Michael J. Sophie                                              |
|   | Title: Senior Vice  President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer |
|        |                                                                      |  |  |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Madison County Commissioner of Social Services, on Behalf of Mary Chafee, Respondent, v Michael J. Felker, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 257]

Malone Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Madison County (DiStefano, J.), entered September 9, 2011, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant *1374to Family Ct Act article 4, to hold respondent in willful violation of a prior order of support.

Pursuant to a May 2007 order, respondent, the father of a child born in 2002, was directed to pay to Mary Chafee, the mother, weekly child support in the amount of $25. For his failure to make such payments previously, respondent was incarcerated from February 2010 until August 2010. Upon his continued failure to make any payments, petitioner commenced this violation proceeding on behalf of Chafee. Family Court ultimately found that respondent had willfully failed to obey the May 2007 order between the time he was released from his prior incarceration in August 2010 and the onset of medical problems in April 2011. As a result, the court ordered that respondent be incarcerated for 150 days or until such time as he made a payment of $800, representing the amount in arrears that corresponded with the period of willful violation. Respondent appeals.

Respondent’s sole contention on appeal is that Family Court erred by not addressing the issue of whether he was entitled to a good time allowance pursuant to Correction Law § 804-a (1) while incarcerated. Upon a review of the record, we disagree. There is nothing in the court’s order regarding a good time allowance because the issue of good time was not raised before Family Court. Indeed, any issue regarding respondent’s potential entitlement to a good time allowance would not arise until after he was incarcerated pursuant to the order from which he appeals *(see*Correction Law § 804-a [3] [a determination granting a good time allowance would be made by the sheriff, superintendent, warden or another person in charge of the institution in which a respondent was incarcerated]). While an administrative denial of good time might be challenged in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 or other such proceeding, that issue is not before this Court on this appeal.

Peters, P.J., Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
#### Bradley Shane SHEPPARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF FCI ESTILL, Respondent-Appellee, and United States of America, Respondent.

No. 11-6633.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

*981Bradley Shane Sheppard, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bradley Shane Sheppard, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2011) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Sheppard v. Warden of FCI-Estill,*No.. 1:10-cv-03220-RMG, 2011 WL 1258556 (D.S.C. Apr. 5, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
GLD-285 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2862

___________

DAWN MARIE BALL,

Appellant

v.

JUDGE NANCY BUTTS

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 11-cv-01068)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 8, 2011

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES AND COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 21, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Dawn Ball, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed suit against Judge Nancy Butts of 

the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas. Ball alleges that, during a pending 

criminal matter, Judge Butts ordered her transferred to SCI-Muncy, where she alleges she 

has been mistreated in the past and continues to be mistreated. Ball further alleges that 
2

Judge Butts ordered the transfer with “malicious intent,” and she seeks a transfer to 

another prison and monetary damages. The District Court granted Ball leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”), then dismissed her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) on the basis of judicial immunity. Ball appeals.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review of the District 

Court’s application of law under § 1915(e)(2)(B) is plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 

F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). Because we too have granted Ball leave to proceed IFP, we 

must screen this appeal to determine whether it is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An appeal is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in 

fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

This appeal lacks any such basis. As the District Court adequately explained, 

immunity extends even to judicial acts that are “done maliciously,” and Ball has alleged 

nothing suggesting that Judge Butts acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” 

Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 769 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). To the extent that Ball’s request for injunctive relief might not 

have been subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), it was subject to dismissal 

under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because such relief is not available against “a judicial officer 

for an act . . . taken in such officer’s judicial capacity” under these circumstances. 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Finally, we are satisfied that any amendment of Ball’s complaint would 

be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002). Thus, 

we will dismiss this appeal. Ball’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF TRAFFIX, INC.

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                     STATE OF INCORPORATION
SUBSIDIARY                                                              OR ORGANIZATION
----------                                                           ----------------------
<S>  <C>                                                             <C>
1.   GroupLotto, Inc.                                                    Delaware
2.   MultiBuyer, Inc.                                                    Delaware
3.   Quintelcomm, Inc.                                                   Delaware
4.   Quintel Financial Information Services, Inc.                        Delaware
5.   Calling Card Company, Inc.                                          New York
6.   New Lauderdale L.C.                                                 Florida
7.   N.L. Corp.                                                          Delaware
8.   Creative Direct Marketing, Inc.                                     Delaware
9.   Quintel Hair Products, Inc.                                         Delaware
10.  Quintel Products, Inc.                                              Delaware
11.  Quintelco., Inc.                                                    Delaware
12.  Quintel Psychic Zone, Inc.                                          Delaware
13.  Quintel LaBuick Products, LLC                                       Delaware
14.  Montvale Management, LLC                                           New Jersey
</Table>
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 2 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas John Fitzgerald Kennedy was elected to the United 

States House of Representatives and served from January 3, 1947, to January 3, 1953, until he was elected by 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the Senate where 

he served from January 3, 1953, to December 22, 1960; 

Whereas on November 8, 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy 

was elected as the 35th President of the United States; 

and 

Whereas on January 20, 1961, President Kennedy was sworn 

in as President of the United States and delivered his inaugural address at 12:51pm, a speech that served as a 

clarion call to service for the Nation: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR 

4 AN EVENT HONORING PRESIDENT KENNEDY. 

5 The rotunda of the United States Capitol is author6 ized to be used on January 20, 2011, for a ceremony in 

7 honor of the 50th anniversary of the inaugural address 

8 of President John F. Kennedy. Physical preparations for 
2 

†SCON 2 ES 

1 the conduct of the ceremony shall be carried out in accord2 ance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Ar3 chitect of the Capitol. 

Passed the Senate January 5, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 2 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol 

inaugural address of President John F. Kennedy. for an event marking the 50th anniversary of the
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11.1

                         INTERNATIONAL COMPUTEX, INC.

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                        Three Months                  Six Months 
                                       ended June 30,               ended June 30,
                                     1996           1997          1996          1997
                                 -----------    -----------   -----------   -----------
<S>                              <C>            <C>            <C>          <C>
Pro forma net income                213,819        269,223       364,906       441,728
 
Weighted average number
   of common and common 
   equivalent shares are as 
   follows:
 
   Weighted average common
      shares outstanding          2,125,000      2,875,000     2,125,000     2,500,000
 
   Shares issued from 
      assumed exercise
      of common stock
      equivalents (1)               232,836        237,596       232,836       237,596
                                 -----------    -----------   -----------   -----------

Weighted average number
   of common and common
   equivalent shares 
   outstanding                    2,357,836      3,112,596     2,357,836     2,737,596
                                 ===========    ===========   ===========   =========== 

Per share data:
   Net income                      $   .09        $   .09       $   .15       $   .16
                                 ===========    ===========   ===========   =========== 
</TABLE>


(1)  Shares issued from assumed exercise of common stock equivalents include the
     number of incremental shares which would result from applying the treasury
     stock method.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                                                  |  |                  
|------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|                                                  | 
|By:                                               |  | /s/ Larry D. Hall
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                 
|Date: March 12, 2010